Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not convinced even you believe that.

Considering that the story goes that god "spoke" things into existance.....

That pretty much sounds like Merlin saying "abracadabra" and POOF!, a rabbit!
As a matter of fact... that ONLY sounds like some wizard saying "abracadabra" and POOF!

Chances are I'll see you somewhere else demanding evidence for the creation week ... or equating the creation week with fossils ... or the Flood ... or some other historical event that came after those six days.

I don't do that anymore, since I understand now that your position of Last Thursdayism as a (non)answer to just about any objection.

If you allow for magic (last thursday), then anything is "possible".

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for demonstrating that I was right.

Considering that the story goes that god "spoke" things into existance.....

That is correct.

That pretty much sounds like Merlin saying "abracadabra" and POOF!, a rabbit!
As a matter of fact... that ONLY sounds like some wizard saying "abracadabra" and POOF!

Which came first? the rabbit, or Merlin saying "abracadabra"?

I don't do that anymore, since I understand now that your position of Last Thursdayism as a (non)answer to just about any objection.

If you allow for magic (last thursday), then anything is "possible".

Didn't learn anything, did you?

What's wrong? not in a classroom? can't buy a $275.00 textbook down in the bookstore? no registration fees? VISA card? scholarship to use? licentious football team?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thank you for demonstrating that I was right.That is correct.Which came first? the rabbit, or Merlin saying "abracadabra"?Didn't learn anything, did you?

What's wrong? not in a classroom? can't buy a $275.00 textbook down in the bookstore? no registration fees? VISA card? scholarship to use? licentious football team?

Save your derailment thrash talk for someone else.
I'm not interested in another round of Last Thursdayism nonsense.

 

[inquiring mind]

You need to take a step back and reflect on how unwilling you are to learn anything about the topic you so passionatly argue against.

If I was unwilling to learn anything I wouldn't be here in the first place. But, before that puffs you up any, I will add that unfortunately I'm having to pick up things mostly on my own. And, if nothing else, at least I'm helping you to think about, and re-evaluate, a lot of the ideas you and the rest of the Illuminati gang )) push here.

You need to reflect on the fact that you passionatly argue against a subject you literally do not understand.

Understanding doesn't equal believing as you do.

Many of us have tried really hard to explain to you the implications of being able to find transitional fossils (like Tiktaalik) by prediction based on evolution theory and evolutionary history.

Finding fossils that luckily could be made to fit the macro evolutionary model were primarily based on geological info. When searching rock cuts became too unproductive and hard to defend, they found an area that fit the time-frame exclusively (the only real forward prediction that I can make of it, and it a given if you are to believe such transitioning happened) and luckily found a 375 million year old strange fish (no surprise, and it only a 'dot' at best). Again, where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence? And, I didn't see or pick up on anyone staking their career on the prediction that a find would definitely be made before they went there.

NOT ONCE have you addressed that implication. Instead, only rather silly attempts at ridicule (like calling it "tic tac") and arguments "against" it by literally INVENTING and assuming things, by accusing scientists of being liars (without justification), by misrepresenting the science, by simply lying about the science, etc etc.

I hope the above puts to rest the continued accusations that I have not addressed the question, with my less-than-professional opinion of course, and I only refer to it as Tic Tac because it's easier to spell. Indeed, these are professionals who I believe truly think their find proved transitionals exist for the macro evolution model. Suggesting that I use ridicule, accusations of inventing, accusing, lying, etc. are your words, not mine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I was unwilling to learn anything I wouldn't be here in the first place. But, before that puffs you up any, I will add that unfortunately I'm having to pick up things mostly on my own. And, if nothing else, at least I'm helping you to think about, and re-evaluate, a lot of the ideas you and the rest of the Illuminati gang )) push here.

The saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Many of us have gone out of our way to explain things to you. You keep ignoring them. That leads me to believe that you are not hear to learn. You are here to preach.

No, I can guarantee you that nothing you have said made us re-evaluate anything at all, as everything that you said was the very same stuff that the creationists / cdesign proponentsists have been putting for several decades - all of which has been debunked and refuted for a long time already.

Understanding doesn't equal believing as you do.

Indeed it doesn't. I'm not talking about agreement or acceptance. I'm talking about understanding of the subject matter. You don't have any. That is very clear from the responses you give and the claims that you make.

Finding fossils that luckily could be made to fit the macro evolutionary model were primarily based on geological info.

There you go again with the denial and the total disregard of the explanations provided by people like @KomatiiteBIF and others.

Geological information alone will NOT provide you with the ability to accurately predict where you will find what kind of fossils.

It has been explained to you, very clearly, why we expect to find fish/tetrapod hybrids in the mid to late devonian layers. If you still think that it is solely based on "geological info", then that is just further evidence that you either don't understand what is being said or you are deliberatly ignoring what is being said. I have no other explanation.

It's not "luck". It's anything but "luck".

When searching rock cuts became too unproductive and hard to defend, they found an area that fit the time-frame exclusively (the only real forward prediction that I can make of it, and it a given if you are to believe such transitioning happened) and luckily found a 375 million year old strange fish (no surprise, and it only a 'dot' at best). Again, where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence? And, I didn't see or pick up on anyone staking their career on the prediction that a find would definitely be made before they went there.

More denial and ignorance.

All this has been explained to you already.

I hope the above puts to rest the continued accusations that I have not addressed the question

Actually, it only confirmed that the accusations are spot on....
You're still not addressing how they could accurately predict both locality and feature set of the fossil, based on the evolutionary model.

In fact, you're actually even denying it happened.
Denial, denial, denial.

Indeed, these are professionals who I believe truly think their find proved transitionals exist for the macro evolution model. Suggesting that I use ridicule, accusations of inventing, accusing, lying, etc. are your words, not mine.

Off course they are mine. And I can support the accusations.
You don't have to look further then this post of yours:

- Denial that it was predicted before the actual find.
- Claims that they were just "lucky".


It's ridiculous, really.

 

[Jimmy D]

Again, where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence?

I would have thought that some one attempting to debate tiktaalik would have a vague idea of what was 'a little before' and 'a little after'.

Do you really have to be spoon fed everything?

 

[inquiring mind]

@ DogmaHunter
@Jimmy D
Trying to be reasonable with you has only led to more of the old 'tired' comebacks of denial and ignorance, no real rebuttals... so no more. I'll just start by saying I think you are very confused, to the point you can't interpret anything that doesn't fit your pre-programmed illusions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Finding fossils that luckily could be made to fit the macro evolutionary model were primarily based on geological info. When searching rock cuts became too unproductive and hard to defend, they found an area that fit the time-frame exclusively and luckily found a 375 million year old strange fish (no surprise, and it only a 'dot' at best). Again, where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence? And, I didn't see or pick up on anyone staking their career on the prediction that a find would definitely be made before they went there.

This isnt even a real response.

Their findings with respect to the fossil succession is based on the theory of evolution. As geologists, we identify rocks, and their respective qualities and localities. But the findings with regards to fossil evidence, is based more on the theory of evolution, than it is what rock type they were working in.

For example, there are ancient stream beds in the ordovician, and the carboniferous. But it wasnt this geological info that allowed the prediction of tiktaalik to be made. It was the paleontological info and the theory of evolution that allowed the prediction to be made.

And you said "where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence. But if you watched the video, you can see where neil talked about just that. He described how those road cuts which you consider "unproductive", had rocks just a little bit younger which were packed with tetrapods, and those road cuts with rocks a little bit older, are packed with fish. Hence why they made the journey to Canada to seek out rocks with an age in between those identified in the previously observed road cuts.

And nobody is "staking their career". But thousands of dollars were spent renting a helicoptor and going through wilderness training and purchasing all the resources that it takes to survive in the barren tundra for weeks at a time. People dont just do this on a whim. It was done in conjunction with a prediction based on the theory of evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

We have an entire planet of rock outcrops. Everywhere you go on earth, you can find rock outcrops.

If evolution is true, there are very, very few places on earth that have rock outcrops of the right age, younger than the early devonian and older than the lastest members, that might contain the oldest tetrapod-fish hybrid transitional fossils, on earth.

If the theory of evolution was not explanatory with respect to how the fossil succession should exist, then tiktaalik would never have been found because nobody would have any clue where to begin looking when we have an entire planet of rock and fossil.

 

[Speedwell]

Finding fossils that luckily could be made to fit the macro evolutionary model were primarily based on geological info. When searching rock cuts became too unproductive and hard to defend, they found an area that fit the time-frame exclusively (the only real forward prediction that I can make of it, and it a given if you are to believe such transitioning happened) and luckily found a 375 million year old strange fish (no surprise, and it only a 'dot' at best). Again, where is the 'a little before' and 'a little after' transitional evidence? And, I didn't see or pick up on anyone staking their career on the prediction that a find would definitely be made before they went there.

.

See, what you are looking for is a complete transitional series which will "prove" the evolutionary model. But that is not what scientists are doing. All they are doing is looking for what they can find and seeing whether it fits the evolutionary model or not. The "little before" and "little after" fossils may never be found, but what has been found provides provisional confirmation for the evolutionary model, and that is as good as science gets.

 

[inquiring mind]

He described how those road cuts which you consider "unproductive", had rocks just a little bit older which were packed with tetrapods, and those road cuts with rocks a little bit younger, are packed with fish.

Indeed, and were any of them transitioning to or from?

Hence why they made the journey to Canada to seek out rocks with an age in between those identified in the previously observed road cuts.

And found a strange fish (a dot), and promoted it as the answer to macro evolution.

And nobody is "staking their career". But thousands of dollars were spent renting a helicoptor and going through wilderness training and purchasing all the resources that it takes to survive in the barren tundra for weeks at a time. People dont just do this on a whim. It was done in conjunction with a prediction based on the theory of evolution.

... and don't forget, sold a lot of books too.

 

[inquiring mind]

See, what you are looking for is a complete transitional series which will "prove" the evolutionary model. But that is not what scientists are doing. All they are doing is looking for what they can find and seeing whether it fits the evolutionary model or not. The "little before" and "little after" fossils may never be found, but what has been found provides provisional confirmation for the evolutionary model, and that is as good as science gets.

Finally, someone who makes sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

.

 

[Job 33:6]

Indeed, and were any of them transitioning to or from?


And found a strange fish (a dot), and promoted it as the answer to macro evolution.


... and don't forget, sold a lot of books too.

That is the transition. Fish to fish tetrapod hybrid to tetrapod.

We aren't going to see fossils literally changing before our eyes.

 

[Job 33:6]

He asked if any fossils were seen transitioning. You're looking at the transition. That's why half fish half tetrapod are found between fish and tetrapods

 

[inquiring mind]

That is the transition. Fish to fish tetrapod hybrid to tetrapod.
We aren't going to see fossils literally changing before our eyes.

If you see only one complete specimen, what is to keep that from being just another of God's miraculous creations that eventually went extinct? Now, if after ten years of 'gold rush' style digging they produced 'a little before' and 'a little after' complete transitionals, well...

 

[Job 33:6]

Finally, someone who makes sense.

"but what has been found provides provisional confirmation for the evolutionary model, and that is as good as science gets."

He is saying that fossils that have been found, confirm the evolutionary model. Ie fish, then tetrapod like fish, then fish like tetrapods, then tetrapods, in that order, support the theory.

 

[46AND2]

If you see only one complete specimen, what is to keep that from being just another of God's miraculous creations that eventually went extinct?

For starters, we wouldn't be able to predict where to find them...

 

[Speedwell]

Finally, someone who makes sense.

And that's all we have been trying to tell you for weeks.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you see only one complete specimen, what is to keep that from being just another of God's miraculous creations that eventually went extinct? Now, if after ten years of 'gold rush' style digging they produced 'a little before' and 'a little after' complete transitionals, well...

It isnt just one specimen that is being observed, there are collections of them. And the point is that these half fish-half tetrapod tiktaalik specimen are found after the early devonian of fish domination and before the later devonian tetrapod domination.